by Alan Adaschik

According to our Constitution the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in lower courts as established by Congress. The powers, responsibilities, and limitations of the Supreme Court are as follows.

• The judicial power of the Supreme Court shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made with foreign nations.

• In all cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, individual states, and treaties with foreign nations, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.

• Trial for a criminal act, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by Jury.

• Judges, including those of the Supreme Court, may be removed from office by impeachment.

That’s it in a nutshell. The Supreme Court exists for the sole purpose of settling differences or disputes between citizens, the states, the federal government, and foreign citizens or states. The primary guide for their rulings, in order of importance, will be the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the agreed upon provisions of treaties.

This seems simple and straight forward, but when it comes to our government, nothing is simple or straight forward and so it is with our Supreme Court. This is readily apparent when you read how the Court is supposed to function and then examine how it really does. In two previous essays, “Let’s Fire Congress” and Let’s Fire (Impeach) the President, I established that Congress and the Office of the President are criminal enterprises preying upon the citizens they are supposed to serve. This state of affairs would not exist if the Supreme Court did its job properly. Therefore, it is safe to assume they do not and indeed, this is readily apparent upon reviewing the facts.

The first thing that should be clearly understood is that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court can deny a citizen their day in court. The right to petition our government for the redress of grievances is a sacred and fundamental inalienable right. No citizen, irrespective of who they are, should be denied the right to question how our government functions and if their concern is found to have merit, it follows that the proper redress is for our government is to cease and desist its wrongful and unconstitutional actions.

Simple huh! Whoa Pilgrim, it should be that simple, but it is not. If our government is going to successfully function as a criminal enterprise, then the only possible way for it to do so is to deny citizens their right to petition government for the redress of grievances and, indeed, this is exactly what has been done with the complicity and cooperation of our Supreme Court. To be sure, in violation of their scared oath of office, our Supreme Court has joined with the other two branches of our government in an unholy conspiracy to swindle and defraud the American people out of their rights, well-being, and heritage.

For the purpose of bringing the above to fruition, the Supreme Court deliberately and wrongfully ignores their prime constitutional mandate, the responsibility of “original jurisdiction”. Instead, the Court subscribes to a policy of only hearing cases brought to it through appeal from a lower court. The fly in the ointment with this is that under appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can refuse to hear a case leaving the decision of the lower court intact irrespective of constitutional concerns. The bitter irony evident here is that while petitioners appear to have had their day in court, albeit a lesser court, the truth of the matter is that instead of having a fair and impartial hearing, the deck was stacked against from the start and the dismissal of their complaint predetermined. And while this travesty of justice is transpiring, our Supreme Court sits back aloof from the issues on hand, letting the lower courts do their dirty work for them.

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court does not enjoy such nefarious authority. To be sure, the doctrine of original jurisdiction deems that petitioners with a grievance have a right to approach the Supreme Court directly and they cannot be refused in this regard. The Constitution is also clear on what kinds of controversies or grievances fall under the prevue of original jurisdiction. They are all cases in law and equity affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, individual states, and treaties with foreign nations. In other words, if a citizen has a problem or grievance with an ambassador, a public minister or consul, any state in the Union, a treaty with a foreign nation, or with a foreign nation, then that citizen has a right to bring the matter directly to the attention of the Supreme Court without reservation or refusal.

This is the primary responsibility placed upon the Supreme Court by our Constitution and this is the responsibility they deliberately ignore so that lower courts can establish unconstitutional precedents, the purposes of which are to render our Constitution a dysfunctional and worthless document. Two particular precedents in this regard, are the so called speech and debate clause and a ruling which denies standing to petitioners in a lawsuit who have not been directly and personally injured by an official action of government.

The speech and debate clause reasons that because our Constitution provides that Congress will make our laws, then they cannot be made in any other place. If our laws cannot be made in any other place, then they cannot be questioned in any other place including a court of law. This line of reasoning is absurd and ridiculous because it denies the primary responsibility provided to our Supreme Court by our Constitution, which is to question and pass judgment upon the actions of Congress. If an act of Congress cannot be questioned in any other place, then it cannot be questioned by the Supreme Court which is another place.

The reasoning behind the “standing” ruling is that in order to meet the prerequisites of a class action lawsuit, plaintiffs must prove and demonstrate that they have suffered a specific and particular injury as opposed to a generalized and theoretical one. In other words, if Congress passes an unconstitutional law that injures all citizens equally as a group, with no one citizen or identifiable group of citizens suffering a unique personal injury, then the plaintiffs lack standing or recourse in a court of law. This line of reasoning is also absurd and ridiculous because most things our government does, by there very nature, affect all citizens equally and not in a unique and personal way.

The two rulings discussed above are unconstitutional and should be so judged Supreme Court rendering them null and void. However, because the Supreme Court wrongfully refuses to allow any citizen or group of citizens to approach it directly on such matters, they remain in force and are used by the lesser Courts to deny citizens their rights under the Constitution. And the Supreme Court of the United States of America sits back in their flowing black robes and does nothing while pretending there is nothing wrong.

There is something wrong, terribly wrong. Our government is now a criminal conspiracy where we no longer have any say in how we are governed and what our government does. This situation has progressed to the point where our government is no longer ours. It is now the government of our globalist masters and they are having their way with us by dissolving our borders, driving us into insolvency, squandering our resources, using our armed forces to fight their illegal and wrongful wars, and by turning us into indentured servants instead of citizens.

Our Supreme Court is no longer supreme and is now just a tool used by the Globalists to make us think we have a government that is functioning properly. The truth is that our present government is nothing more than a stooge to the world’s financial power brokers and because of our apathy and ignorance, the future in store for our children is one of bondage and slavery.